Saturday, February 14, 2009

Because marriage uniquely benefits societies and enables them to continue, societies extend to marriage special recognition and benefits in order to encourage it. The more stable and successful marriages that exist in society, the stronger it is and the better it can survive.

22 comments:

Okay, quick question. How does gay marriage not benefit society in the same way that heterosexual marriage does?

Please remember that we live in the modern world where it's acknowledged that unmarried people can in fact produce offspring and raise them, so the fact that heterosexual marriages can't result in children can't be what you're referring to, especially given alternatives such as adoption and the undeniable overpopulation of our world that makes the production of more children a dubious distinction. Presumably you're talking about something else.. Which I assume also isn't stability, given current statistics on marriage longevity.

No matter how modern our world gets, children still need a mom and a dad. Study after study shows that children do BEST with a married mom and dad. Divorce is not a reason to justify same gender marriage. Women choosing to deprive children of a father, so they can be a mom, s not a reason to justify same gender marriage. Overpopulation is not a reason to justify same gender marriage.

Same gender marriage cannot benefit society in the same way as traditional marriage because it cannot provide children with a man and a woman, living in the same house, devoted and responsible for their care and development.

The idea of gay marriage doesn't seem to damage traditional marriage if marriage were a private matter instead of a public institution.

The institution of marriage and the institution of the family have been redefined from a public to a private concern. As a private concern, it no longer holds the importance or the "sanctity" of public value. As a private concern, anyone can claim anything they want to as a marriage or family because that is a "private" matter, not subject to government or societal interference.

The institution of marriage, however, is a public concern and subject to public definition to exclude same sex couples. When it is redefined, by including same sex couples, the institution breaks, no longer having any original meaning. The institution no longer defines a relationship between a man and a woman with the potential of producing children and defining their legal status. Instead it becomes a private concern, based on extra-legal intangibles.

Good point Euripides. Trying to make marriage a private thing ruins it.

Marriage alone, of all possible unions gives to society the one thing it needs most to survive, new members. Marriage is capable of generating and bringing to maturity productive new members for a society and thus enabling it to continue.

It is possible to sever the link between the generating of offspring and the raising of them. A homosexual union would be at least semi-capable of raising children,but why should any society want to engage in such a cumbersome workaround? The union of marriage does both by nature. It’s the way humans and human societies are designed to work. Marriage is the way in which sex and reproduction can be controlled and directed to the good of society.

Marriage can not be changed from what it already is. Marriage is not a social construct but a part of human nature and no one has the power to change human nature.

All society could do is institute homosexual marriage as a legal fiction. We could create laws requiring those in society to treat those in homosexual unions as if they were married. People could be required to refer to homosexual unions as "marriages," to refer to people in such unions as "spouses," etc.

While the law could be rewritten to coerce society into treating people in homosexual unions as if they were married, this would not give them the reality of marriage. It would not change the nature of their union to correspond to what marriage actually is. All society would be doing is playing a word game, stretching the term marriage so that it no longer picks out a particular human reality.

Once the definition has been stretched what next? Siblings could also claim the "right" to marry. What argument could be put forward to prevent this from happening. It raises an interesting question. If same sex couples can get married why not siblings or a father son marriage?

Of course marriage is a social construct. How can you define it otherwise?

Have you guys checked out the statistics on marriage lately? The simple act of saying the words and putting a ring on each other's finger does not mean that a couple is going to be any more likely to stick together.

As to it being so important to make babies.. we have too many babies now. Sorry, but it's true. Reproducing like rabbits is not beneficial for society.

If, however, you feel that the primary purpose of marriage is making babies let me ask you if you oppose marriage for infertile couples. Presumably the same logic applies there that it does to homosexuals. Neither one can make babies. So neither one has a purpose under your view, right?

We should give folks who give children the BEST opportunities the added benefits of marriage. Research is very clear that a mother and a father of opposite sex provide children with the best opportunities for happiness and health. A man and a woman married provide the GOLD standard of parenting for children, why settle for or encourage less?

Many homes do not meet the gold standard but that doesn't mean that we should remove the standard or pretend that anything is good enough. We should do what we can to encourage meeting the gold standard through incentives.

I agree that we should use what works. In our imperfect world there are such things as death and divorce, but everyone agrees that these circumstances are a tragedy in the life of a child, they're not prohibited, but not encouraged either. Same-sex couples create motherless and fatherless children by design, by design they're asking that children be raised without a mom or without a dad. I don't think that's equal for a child. It's putting adult sexual preference above the needs of children. It's sounds great to say that there ought to be no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I admit, that sounds appealing, but when you look into it, the choice to live that lifestyle is not equal to the choice to live and raise children in a marriage. People are equal, choices aren't, and kids have rights too. What works best are families with a mom and a dad. That's why society encourages marriage and everything else is something else.

"Of course marriage is a social construct. How can you define it otherwise?"

Pro-marriage folks don't define marriage as anything other than a social construct. Gay activists, however, twist the meaning of marriage to suit their arguments and include only private concerns in the definition. For example, I've cataloged a number of such gay activist statements such as: "It's all about love"; "Keep your laws out of my bedroom"; "How does what we do in private affect you?"

What this does is creates a false analogy of marriage as simply a private matter between two individuals when we all know marriage is a social construct. By changing the definition of marriage to include something it is not (a state sanctioned union between people of the same sex) the social construct has been changed, the institution has been changed, and society loses a key foundation on which to build.

"Have you guys checked out the statistics on marriage lately? The simple act of saying the words and putting a ring on each other's finger does not mean that a couple is going to be any more likely to stick together."

True, and divorce is another terrible factor at work to destroy the institution of marriage. Families suffer in the divorce. Why should we make families also suffer because a few folks don't like the current institution of marriage and want to change it?

"As to it being so important to make babies.. we have too many babies now. Sorry, but it's true. Reproducing like rabbits is not beneficial for society."

Red herring. This doesn't address the fundamental public aspect of marriage as a state sanctioned union between a man and a woman with the possibility of creating children. Children have a right to a loving mother and father who can protect them, provide for their needs and see them become useful members of society.

Saying that children don't have a right to a mother and a father is denying children a fundamental right.

"If, however, you feel that the primary purpose of marriage is making babies let me ask you if you oppose marriage for infertile couples."

You misrepresent the purpose of marriage in connection with children. Marriage as a social construct isn't all about making babies, but about the possibility of making babies. That possibility is why the institution is an ancient one and has survived for thousands of years. Any children which might come from a marriage must also have certain status within the family and within the state.

"Or is the baby thing just an excuse?"

An excuse for what? Pro-marriage folks aren't the ones trying to redefine the institution.

Marriage arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, the both-sexed nature of human generativity, and the both-sexed nature of human community.

In this profound sense, the conjugal relationship, at root, is not a social construct.

However, marriage is also a social institution.

Its role and purpose is foundational to civilization. Its core is unchanging and universal; its public meaning is embedded at all levels of society -- not just in terms of Government.

Meanwhile, the paramaters of the social institution are regulated by the governing authority and it is in that sense that this social construct is culture-bound. Protocols may vary, but the core around which these run is invariable.

Culture is our adaptation to our physiology and biology. Marriage is not merely a superficial status based on sexual orientation. This is not homo- versus hetero-sexuality.

It is about integrating the sexes, providing for responsible procreation, and making of these key aspects a coherent whole.

SSM is not a foundational social institution. It is not in accord with the nature of humankind, as outline above. It cannot provide contingency for responsible procreation.

Whatever its merits (and demerits) SSM is a nonmarital alternative with no definitive criterion or requirements, at law.

* * *

Nomad, what is infertility, as far as your understanding?

Then please explain how infertility would be analogous with the lack of the other sex in a relationship.

Then please explain how infertility would be analogous with the lack of the other sex in a relationship.

Great questions Chairm, I look forward to hearing Nomad's response.

I'll remind you that the topic of this post was "how does gay marriage hurt your family". So, how does your family get hurt by George Takai and his male partner saying the words?

I recently attempted to answer this question on another blog. I pointed out that if same sex couples had the right to marry then so did siblings have the right to marry each other.

Jeff, I’m interested in your opinion on the topic, who, I believe supports same sex marriage. I’m after what you believe is the principle which allows same sex couples to marry but not siblings.

You are happy to refuse the “rights” of siblings etc to marry, as outlined in the Family Code. Can you tell me why you reject the “rights” of siblings to marry and yet support the “rights” of same sex partners to marry? Isn’t this a form of discrimination against sibling marriage? What principle allows same sex couples to have the right but not siblings?

The question could not be answered by Jeff.

Jeff, I don’t think you can answer my question. What principle allows same sex couples to have the right to marry but not siblings?

The problem is, if we give same sex couples the right to marry we must also give siblings the right to marry. I think we both agree that this would be unsatisfactory in our society. You have been unable to give me a reason why same sex couples can marry but siblings can’t. I don’t think there is a reason. If we give the right to same sex couples we must also give it to siblings and any other combination you can think of. This is why it is essential to keep marriage restricted to one man and one women. If we don’t it will be the door that opens all sorts of marriage arrangements.

Eventually we will end up with a brother and sister couple who wish to marry. They will say “you allowed same sex couples to marry how about us.” There doesn’t seem to be any reason why we should forbid it once marraige has been stretched to include same sex couples. Why not stretch it a bit more and include siblings?

Canada has same sex marraige and they are now confronted with a polygamous group who want recognition in the eyes of the law.

It's a very simple question. The subject of this post was "how does gay marriage hurt your family".

I find it interesting that I try to ask that, the responses I get are people trying to muddy the waters rather than give an answer.

Chairm, you said:"First things first: what words? Please be specific."

You know what words I mean. You're perfectly capable of putting two and two together, the subject of this discussion is gay marriage. You must know that George Takai was recently married to another man.. extrapolate. You're trying to avoid getting to the question because you have no answer.

As to the whole "but if two men can get married, that means that a man can marry a piece of cheese if he wants to!" argument, that doesn't logically follow. I don't have to tell you why, you need to tell me why allowing two men to marry means you have to allow whatever else to occur. Are the laws that have been put into place allowing same sex unions also specifically allowing sibling marriages?

I'll ask again. It's very simple. You are a partner in a "traditional" marriage. Two men, or two women, get married. How does that harm you? I mean, do they leave gay cooties behind at the alter that infects the next straight couple to get married?

Secular, since you were so fond of Chairm's fertility question, I'll take that one just for you.

"Nomad, what is infertility, as far as your understanding?

Then please explain how infertility would be analogous with the lack of the other sex in a relationship."

Because it was proposed that making babies was that special thing that man-woman marriages accomplish. You tried to say that THAT was what made societies continue, and that's why man-women marriages were special. If it was all about making babies, then just as two men can't make a baby, a man and a woman, just one of whom is infertile, is also unable to make a baby.

But no one was willing to stick to that argument, it was dropped as soon as it was offered. Basically, what I got was "because they make babies.. er, no, no, it's not about the babies.. it's because it's a stable relationship.. okay, okay, so the divorce rate is sky high and there's no guarantee of stability"..

and I was left with nothing. Which, once again, is why I'm simply asking how two men or two women getting married harms your marriage, either real or imagined if you are not currently in one.

But you can't answer that. If you could, you would have answered it in this post. I mean you posted the question. But all you had to say on the issue was "because marriage is good, so we need more of them".

That's not how logic works. The answer of why is homosexual marriage bad is NOT "because it's bad". Try again.

Imaginary scenarios about legalizing marriage within the family also does not work. A brother and sister are man and women but they are not allowed to marry. Why on Earth would you think that making a man and a man able to marry would suddenly change that? It's a spurious argument thrown out by people who have no REAL objections.

It's a very simple question. The subject of this post was "how does gay marriage hurt your family".

1. It would damage the special status and benefits marriage has in society.

If we allow same sex marriage we must also allow other marriage arrangements. These other arrangements may include two siblings. They may not be involved in a sexual relationship but enter into the marriage for tax purposes only. This lowers the special status marriage has to one of a contract or partnership that anyone can enter into. The purpose being for tax and financial benefits rather than "typical" family marriage.

Marriage usually involves sexual intimacy. If you can get the state to permit same sex marriage then the state is also permitting homosexual activity. If the state says that homosexual activity and same sex marriage is a right then anyone who declares homosexual acts as wrong can be accused of taking away the rights of another citizen. The person who declares homosexuality as wrong becomes a law breaker because they are trying to take away the rights of another group.

As an example, a same sex couple wish to get married in a church. The church refuses so the couple takes the church to court. The church has to pay out money but my family goes to that church so I have to help raise more funds for its running costs. Therefore same sex marraige hurts my family.

This is all very interesting, but maybe we are asking the wrong question. Maybe it should be, "How does discrimination help our society?" or "How does relegating certain portions of society to second class citizenry help us all be better people?"

Some of the "reasons" above are absolutely laughable. Same sex marriage hurts your family because you have to fork over operating costs for your church when they get sued? Has this actually even happened? WHEN gay marriage is finally legal, my partner and I will be getting married far from any church, I wouldn't want their involvement. And they're free to reject anyone they want as far as I'm concerned. Want to help your family? Quit giving your money to a bunch of bigoted, lying mythology-pushers!

And all these arguments about The Children. My partner and I also have no plans to have any children. You may or may not have noticed, but the world has PLENTY of children as it is. The human race is not going to go extinct any time soon, especially not from the act of allowing two people who ALREADY love each other and are ALREADY together have their commitment legally recognized.

And stop arguing, PLEASE, you're just embarrasing yourselves, that legalizing same-sex marriage is going to lead to siblings getting married, or whatever other half-baked "couplings" you're coming up with. Do you see hundreds of thousands of siblings marching and rallying and demanding their right to marry? The size of the gay rights movement alone should tell you that this is a valid argument made by a sizeable minority that feels it is being wronged by the majority.

The bottom line is, society can only be harmed by the continued sanctioning of legal discrimination, and by passing on the teachings that some people are less than others and they deserve fewer rights than others.

Secular Heretic, the US government cannot force a church to conduct a marriage ceremony that is contrary to the teachings of the church. Also, a gay couple would not be able to sue the church for exercising its civil liberties guaranteed by the first amendment of the US constitution. That would be like a couple walking into a synagogue and demanding a Christian-style marriage; if the couple tried to sue the synagogue for refusing, the court would drop the case. Your argument is void.

Meanwhile you studiously avoided spitting out the words you have inmind. I elaborated on that problem but you dodged.

Your remarks reveal that you would hope to make marriage mean less andless.

That does not benefit anyone's marriage -- present or future. Itdetracts.

You obviously seek to abolish from societal regard the core meaning ofthis foundational social institution. But you offer no extraordinaryjustification for such an extraordinary intrusion by government.Instead you ask, why not? That's pretty lame stuff, nomad. You are inno position to instruct others on logic.

Illogically, you would treat each and every marriage as purely aprivate arrangement with no relevancy to the social institution thatmarried people enter into. It makes marriage a meaningless word. Maybethat is why you did not bother to answer the question I asked aboutthe words you imagined.

* * *

1. Nomad, why did you dodge the fertility issue that I had askedabout?

2. Also, you dodged the issue of drawing boundaries around the core ofmarriage.

Just because SSM has no core meaning does not require society topretend that marriage is as meaningless as SSM.

To demonstrate the hollow thing that SSM is, please justify the linesdrawn against some related people, but not all related people. Againstsome previously married people, but not all previously married people.Against some consenting adults, but not all consenting adults. And soforth. Your comments about SSM indicate you are all about redrawingboundaries -- and that you are against arbitrary assertion ofgovernment power. Well, you owe this discussion answers to questionsthat you have dodged.

The first Anonymous comment is another example of the frivolous fearof being anything but indiscriminate. Marriage is meaningless to thatperson.

* * *

The second Anonymous comment is speculative.

SSMers generally do hope that the licensing of SSM will force changeson religious organizations and places of worship. Such changes mightbe limited to ostracization of those who dissent with SSM. But the SSMcampaign has pressed for revoking the tax exempt status of religiousorganizations and places of worship for the "crime" of speaking out onan issue like Proposition 8.

What occured to Methodists in New Jersey -- under the rubric of CivilUnion -- demonstrated that SSMers do seek to force religiousorganizations to act against pro-marriage religious beliefs. As far asmaking government force churches to perform SSMs, well, that's lesslikely but there is hardly an SSMer who'd object if it came to that.Afterall, they want such churches to be labelled as bigoted andhateful.

The real issue is marriage and directly connected is the freedom ofconscience of all people -- religious or not. SSMers would like tonarrow the issue to just what a pastor or priest could be forced todo. But religious organizations, such as Catholic Charities, aretargets for SSMers and they are not going to back-off.

Grab our tag for your blog

Subscribe

The laws of society must respect the dignity of all human beings without exception. The very moral foundation and well being of a society depends on laws and institutions which respect the moral dignity of all human beings.